The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No, 318, dated 21.07.2010, under Section 392 P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Sargodha, District Sargodha.
2. The complainant while aboard his car was intercepted at 8.30 p.m. on 20.07.2010 by Court unknown armed men who tied his arms and legs as well as those of his companions and threw them in a sugarcane crop after having them blind-folded. They snatched, from them cash, cell phones, ATM card etc. at gunpoint and drove away the car of the complainant; the crime was reported to the police on the following morning by the complainant after he untied him with the cooperation of co-victims.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant nominated the petitioner as an accused in his second supplementary statement dated 2(3.11.2010; the petitioner was arrested on 16.03.2011, underwent physical remand for 10 days but nothing was recovered at his instance; the petitioner does not possess any criminal antecedents so he may be released cm bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab submits, that petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender by the police on 15.01.2011; the petitioner's name stands mentioned in Column No, 313 the challan.
5. The petitioner is not nominated in the FIR: The complainant got recorded his first supplementary statement on 22.11.2010 whereby he nominated Muhammad Saleem as an accused but withdrew his name on the following day by making :yet another statement in terms that he was innocent. In his second supplementary statement he nominated Haq Nawaz (petitioner), Ajab Gui, Ohulam Rasool and Naveed Hussain as accused, on the basis or his personal knowledge but failed to disclose his source. The petitioner despite having undergone physical remand for 10 days, did not lead to the recovery of any crime article. The prosecution appears to be short of connecting evidence against the petitioner at the moment. There is no cavil to the proposition that a fugitive from law would lose some of his normal rights guaranteed under the substantive law as well as the procedural law but mere abscondence without any incriminating/connecting evidence cannot impede grant of bail to an accused. Sufficient reasons exist to believe that the petitioner's case calls for further probe into his guilt, as required by Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.
6. Therefore, I accept this application and admit the petitioner to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.